Talk:Quick access links (professions)
Ear? d: — Skuld 11:43, 4 September 2006 (CDT) :"Eth" feels like saying "Ether". Since the context is Elementalist anyways, I figure Ear works better d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) Attribute weapon section So.. Do we want it te way it is now, (spreading the boxes), the way it was first''(one equally sized box for every attribute, and fill ups empty)'' or the hybrid one (one weapon attribute professions get to use the fill width of the box)? -- Ifer (t/ ) 17:49, 18 October 2006 (CDT) :The hybrid one was me - you can see my ideal at User:NieA7/Quick Ref - so personally I prefer that approach. Of the other two, however, I much prefer spreading the boxes to having one equally sized box for everything. --NieA7 17:54, 18 October 2006 (CDT) :I still prefer to have a single column that links to "By Attribute" which would list all weapons on one page, sorted by attribute, one after the other (longer single page, but easy to scroll or use a ToC to navigate between attributes). I still think that having individual ones is unneeded and clutters the quick link table. But, if we do keep individual weapon by attribute articles, I like how it was before the most recent change (I guess it was hybrid?) --- Barek (talk • ) - 17:58, 18 October 2006 (CDT) :You can make "attribute" a single column and make each cell a table of its own. Then you'd get equally-spaced cells per attribute no matter how many attributes, and each table would be the same width. It'd require a little reworking to get it to appear as if it were one table, since you'd have to just use CSS and not cellspacing/cellpadding. --Fyren 06:08, 21 October 2006 (CDT) Imho, we should remove the attribute box: |} The other three colums contain exactly the same information. What do you guys think? namnatulco 12:55, 8 February 2007 (CST) :I can understand the use of an article by attribute; although it's much less relevant now with the Nightfall weapons with inscriptions. If you're working on a build and need a new weapon of a particular attribute type, it's much more convenient to have the weapons listed by attribute, rather than needing to look at multiple sections of three different articles. However, I've never been a big fan of linking to up to five different attribute lists from here. Those lists could easilly be linked to from within the other three articles. --- Barek (talk • ) - 13:15, 8 February 2007 (CST) ::Ok, you have a point. How about we make a seperate page for each profession, rather than for each attribute? Similar to what you have now for warrior collector items for example. I'll try and make one, it will be in here: User:namnatulco/wiki . namnatulco 15:22, 8 February 2007 (CST) :::Personally I like having each attribute - I don't think it hurts the table, and I often need to get a weapon that's not tied to my primary profession - being able to go straight to it just makes things a little easier. --NieA7 18:25, 8 February 2007 (CST) ::::(fixed teh link). I guess the biggest problem right now is we do not have the same format on all pages, its confusing. How would you like this? namnatulco 06:38, 9 February 2007 (CST) :::::I really dont think that the weapon attribute column is necessary, as the weapons are already collected in a category. Most people already know the type of weapon they're looking for.-Anooneemiss 23:56, 11 February 2007 (CST) ::::::The type of weapon I'm looking for is a 20/20 Protection wand and a 20/+1 Protection focus. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:25, 19 April 2007 (CDT) Profession guide column suggestion Comments? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:20, 19 April 2007 (CDT) :Looks good --NieA7 04:11, 20 April 2007 (CDT) new layout? |} Yes or no? :P (I'll do the same for the 'campaigns quick access') -{[ [[User:Pulpulpullie|'PUL']] ]}- 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)